Trump is happily raising tariffs after tariffs and the Chinese
reciprocating as much as they could on American exports. So, who is
paying for all the tariff hikes? It was reported that American trade
deficit with China for the month of Jul/Aug actually gone even higher
after the tariffs. What does this say about the effectiveness of the
trade war?
American exports to China are not only going to be more expensive, China
has even stopped buying from American farmers and looking for other
alternative sellers. When alternative sources are found, there would be
no need to go back to buy American produce. American companies in China
are also feeling the squeeze as their exports back to the US would be
more expensive too. Can they afford to close their factories in China
and move back to produce in the USA? For one, Boeing is losing all the
thousands of aircraft that China has ordered and would be ordering.
Deals cancelled.
What about Chinese exports to the US especially the consumer goods and
home appliances, including mobile phones and computer related products?
The Chinese products are so cheap that the 10% or 25% tariff would not
make them more expensive than the European or Japanese made. Ultimately
the American consumers would be the one paying for the tariff hikes in
more expensive Chinese products that could be had cheaper.
Trump’s tariff hikes are actually taxes on the American people. Trump is
actually raising taxes on the American people, forcing them to pay more
for Chinese imports. And of course the American govt would gain from
these taxes at the expense of the American people. It is all done for
the good of Americans, so they said.
Who ends up the winners and who ends up the losers?
There is another big loser, another little USA, ie Australia. After
trying to attack China like the Americans, banning Huawei and ZTE from
5G mobile phone operations in Australia, China has shut its door to
Australian products. As of today, 480 Aussie ships, loaded with cargoes
from iron ore, oil, LNG, farm produce, etc etc are circling outside
Chinese ports wanting to sell/unload their goods at cheap sale price,
but China is saying NO to them. Just like the American soya bean ships,
they are just sailing around the Chinese ports praying for a change in
Chinese policy, and an end to the trade war to let them in.
The Aussies may have a lot of raw material to sell. But without buyers,
or big buyers like China, the raw material and commodities are
worthless. The African countries are benefitting from the trade war.
China is buying from Africa instead.
9/19/2018
Ministerial pay – In the name of transparency and coming clean
The govt organ has come out to debunk the various versions of
ministerial pay put up in the social media. In summary, what the social
media was saying is that they wanted to know what the ministers were
being paid. All the guessing and interpretations, some right, some
wrong, some partially right, some partially wrong, is unnecessary if the
govt would come out clean, be transparent as they used to shout about,
to dispel the half truths due not of intent but lack of official
statements.
Yes, there is a formula in the govt website site on the formula recommended by the last ministerial salary review. But the formula did not tell the whole story as the formula and practice did not seem to tally or is perceived so. Why? Simply because the govt is not telling the way it should be. Just come clean and settle this issue once for all and stop the people from guessing and speculating the worse case scenario. When everything is legal and official, there is nothing to hide. When the govt is trying to hide by not telling, it only leads to suspicion and mistrust.
Yes, this is the third time I am saying, parroting the govt, to be transparent, to come clean on the ministerial salary. This means telling the people what the ministers are being paid, not just basic salary and performance bonuses, give the full pay of the ministers, including other appointments like directorship, chairmanship and whatever, as long as it is income to the ministers due to his ministerial appointment. Is this too much to ask for?
Anyone being paid by taxpayers’ money must come clean, be transparent, the fourth time I am saying this, to account and justify for his or her income. This is basic in a democracy, in a country that prides itself that there is no corruption, no abuse of power, everything is legal and TRANSPARENT, nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, nothing that is illegal, nothing that is funny and unexplainable.
The govt owes it to the people to settle this matter once and for all to kill all the fake news and half truths and mischievous speculations. It is for the good of the govt to make this right once and for all.
What do you think? Would there be more bits and pieces here and there and more half truths than the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
PS. The govt formula for minister’s pay is based on a fixed sum, eg PM’s salary is $2.2m a year based on basic salary, 13th month, a variable component up to 3 months, a performance bonus, up to 3 months and a national bonus from 3 to 6 months.
The PM does not get the performance bonus but can get 6 months of national bonus, ie basic salary +1 +3 +6. Other ministers would get basic salary +1 +3 +3 +3, ie basic salary +10 months. The PM is also supposed to get a basic salary +10 months to give $2.2m a year. A MR4 minister should get $1.1m a year. These are supposed to be max they could get. True, not true?
This looks like it, with a max of $2.2m for the PM and $1.1m for an entry level minister. But this is not the case when the performance bonus can be 4.1 average or more than 3 months. If any of the variable bonus can be more than 3 months, it means the max is not the max. So the max of $2.2m and $1.1m is not the max as provided by the ministerial review committee formula.
So, how many months did they get over the last 5 years. No need to talk about those earlier years before the salary revision.
_________________
Yes, there is a formula in the govt website site on the formula recommended by the last ministerial salary review. But the formula did not tell the whole story as the formula and practice did not seem to tally or is perceived so. Why? Simply because the govt is not telling the way it should be. Just come clean and settle this issue once for all and stop the people from guessing and speculating the worse case scenario. When everything is legal and official, there is nothing to hide. When the govt is trying to hide by not telling, it only leads to suspicion and mistrust.
Yes, this is the third time I am saying, parroting the govt, to be transparent, to come clean on the ministerial salary. This means telling the people what the ministers are being paid, not just basic salary and performance bonuses, give the full pay of the ministers, including other appointments like directorship, chairmanship and whatever, as long as it is income to the ministers due to his ministerial appointment. Is this too much to ask for?
Anyone being paid by taxpayers’ money must come clean, be transparent, the fourth time I am saying this, to account and justify for his or her income. This is basic in a democracy, in a country that prides itself that there is no corruption, no abuse of power, everything is legal and TRANSPARENT, nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, nothing that is illegal, nothing that is funny and unexplainable.
The govt owes it to the people to settle this matter once and for all to kill all the fake news and half truths and mischievous speculations. It is for the good of the govt to make this right once and for all.
What do you think? Would there be more bits and pieces here and there and more half truths than the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
PS. The govt formula for minister’s pay is based on a fixed sum, eg PM’s salary is $2.2m a year based on basic salary, 13th month, a variable component up to 3 months, a performance bonus, up to 3 months and a national bonus from 3 to 6 months.
The PM does not get the performance bonus but can get 6 months of national bonus, ie basic salary +1 +3 +6. Other ministers would get basic salary +1 +3 +3 +3, ie basic salary +10 months. The PM is also supposed to get a basic salary +10 months to give $2.2m a year. A MR4 minister should get $1.1m a year. These are supposed to be max they could get. True, not true?
This looks like it, with a max of $2.2m for the PM and $1.1m for an entry level minister. But this is not the case when the performance bonus can be 4.1 average or more than 3 months. If any of the variable bonus can be more than 3 months, it means the max is not the max. So the max of $2.2m and $1.1m is not the max as provided by the ministerial review committee formula.
So, how many months did they get over the last 5 years. No need to talk about those earlier years before the salary revision.
_________________
9/18/2018
What the world would be like like without the USA or China?
Many people would have taken sides to praise or curse at the USA and China, being the two super powers on earth and influencing and affecting every country when they sneezed. Let's take a look at the world if one of these powers is not around.
What would the world be like without the USA?
Take the case of the world without the USA. The Red Indians or native Indians would still be the owners of North America and the buffaloes would roam the prairies. There would be no nuclear bombs, no air planes, no automobiles, no electricity, no apples or computers and mobile phones and many modern inventions and conveniences.
There would also be no wars of the scale the Americans are committing, no genocides of Red Indians and Arabs, no mass murders of the Koreans and Vietnamese, no Korea War or Vietnam war, no invasion of Iraq and Libya. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi would still be alive. And no CIA to finance, train, finance and support terrorist movements. The Americans are desperately trying to save their terrorists holed up in Idlib, Syria, to avert them from being wiped out by the Russians. And likely no drug syndicates supported by the CIA to provide funds for the CIAs do commit more war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There will be no little USAs trying to punch above their weights, challenging and provoking China and Russia.
And there will be no democracy to talk about. The world would be a little more primitive, but more peaceful, without wars and all the sophisticated war machine for killing more people.
What would the world be like without China?
There would be no Belt and Road Initiative, no big infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa. There would be no rude Chinese tourists throwing their money everywhere and demanding attention. There would be no cheap consumer products for the poor and not so rich. Consumers would still be buying super expensive IBMs and Apple products, expensive computers and mobile phones, no cheap and good Xiaomis or Huaweis or Oppos and household appliances.
The third world countries would have no access to cheap financing to develop their countries. The raw material rich countries would not have big buyers like China to buy their raw materials, or according to the western narrative, to exploit their natural resources for cash or developments. The bulk of Australian natural resources in 480 bulk carriers now circulating outside Chinese ports is a good example of not just having the natural resources, you must have a willing buyer or else your natural resources would be as good as dirt if no one wants to buy them. Australia can try to sell to Europe, Japan and USA and see if there are takers. In this case, obviously no takers.
Without China, the Americans would continue to rule the world and bully everyone with regime change and military threats. I think there would be no wars as the Americans would over power every country and rule over them. There would be no resistance to the American fire power. There is another view to this. Wars would continue as the Americans need to create wars to sell their war machine or else their military war complexes and industries would close down, no buyers, no need for weapons and war machines.
Would the world be more blessed, a better place, without China or the USA?
PS. Without the Americans, there would be peace in the Middle East. Israel would be history. There would be several million Arabs still alive and populating the area instead of being war collateral, American's modern day version of genocide. If the Arabs are still fighting among themselves, they would be using knives and riding on camels.
What would the world be like without the USA?
Take the case of the world without the USA. The Red Indians or native Indians would still be the owners of North America and the buffaloes would roam the prairies. There would be no nuclear bombs, no air planes, no automobiles, no electricity, no apples or computers and mobile phones and many modern inventions and conveniences.
There would also be no wars of the scale the Americans are committing, no genocides of Red Indians and Arabs, no mass murders of the Koreans and Vietnamese, no Korea War or Vietnam war, no invasion of Iraq and Libya. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi would still be alive. And no CIA to finance, train, finance and support terrorist movements. The Americans are desperately trying to save their terrorists holed up in Idlib, Syria, to avert them from being wiped out by the Russians. And likely no drug syndicates supported by the CIA to provide funds for the CIAs do commit more war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There will be no little USAs trying to punch above their weights, challenging and provoking China and Russia.
And there will be no democracy to talk about. The world would be a little more primitive, but more peaceful, without wars and all the sophisticated war machine for killing more people.
What would the world be like without China?
There would be no Belt and Road Initiative, no big infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa. There would be no rude Chinese tourists throwing their money everywhere and demanding attention. There would be no cheap consumer products for the poor and not so rich. Consumers would still be buying super expensive IBMs and Apple products, expensive computers and mobile phones, no cheap and good Xiaomis or Huaweis or Oppos and household appliances.
The third world countries would have no access to cheap financing to develop their countries. The raw material rich countries would not have big buyers like China to buy their raw materials, or according to the western narrative, to exploit their natural resources for cash or developments. The bulk of Australian natural resources in 480 bulk carriers now circulating outside Chinese ports is a good example of not just having the natural resources, you must have a willing buyer or else your natural resources would be as good as dirt if no one wants to buy them. Australia can try to sell to Europe, Japan and USA and see if there are takers. In this case, obviously no takers.
Without China, the Americans would continue to rule the world and bully everyone with regime change and military threats. I think there would be no wars as the Americans would over power every country and rule over them. There would be no resistance to the American fire power. There is another view to this. Wars would continue as the Americans need to create wars to sell their war machine or else their military war complexes and industries would close down, no buyers, no need for weapons and war machines.
Would the world be more blessed, a better place, without China or the USA?
PS. Without the Americans, there would be peace in the Middle East. Israel would be history. There would be several million Arabs still alive and populating the area instead of being war collateral, American's modern day version of genocide. If the Arabs are still fighting among themselves, they would be using knives and riding on camels.
9/17/2018
Chinese mega projects in Malaysia are dubious?
Below is Anwar Ibrahim's reply to questions on Mahathir's cancellation
of Chinese projects while he was in Hong Kong attending a forum.
'Mahathir has made waves pushing back on Chinese investment, warning Beijing against ‘new colonialism.’ Should buyers beware?
Clearly what he meant was any form of neo-colonialism and imperialism will not be tolerated. I think most of us share that view. [The concerns are] tied to some of the cancellations of massive development contracts. This is partly due to the stark realities we have to face. We can’t afford a mammoth, 55 billion Ringgit ($13 billion) project now. And secondly, there were issues raised about these dubious deals made with Chinese companies. I think we have every right to reevaluate and reassess these projects, not only with China, but with all countries.
Below is Anwar Ibrahim's reply to questions on Mahathir's cancellation of Chinese projects while he was in Hong Kong attending a forum. ' Time
What were so dubious about these projects? The projects themselves were dubious, useless? Or were they too costly? How many infrastructure projects are cheap and good and not built with cost recoverable over long term, like the North South Highway or the Crooked Bridge?
Or were the projects dubious because the people approving it were dubious? Or were the money flow dubious? I make a qualification here. The 'dubious' project thing is not from Anwar. He is just parroting it as it is the right thing to do at the moment. He cannot go against whoever started this nonsense.
What is so dubious about these projects that one day they are useless but another day they are useful, one day cancelled and another day ok to build? Or the projects were dubious because dubious people insisted to call them dubious for their personal dubious reasons?
The projects were approved by heads of govt and even the heads of states like the sultans. Are these people dubious? Are these people stupid, traitors to their own country to approve these so called 'dubious' mega projects? By branding these projects as dubious, it is as good as saying all those people that approved these projects are dubious, stupid and traitors to Malaysia, or corrupt leaders with their hands grabbing money from these projects. Is this the case? Is this the accusation?
Najib is in no position to make his case on why he approved all these projects. But there are other leaders and sultans involved. Were they given a chance to state their case or is it a case of power rules and the one in power decides to call anything dubious according to his fancy?
One word, 'dubious' has discredited and tarred the integrity and credibility of many Malaysian leaders, or at least saying that they are all fools, not knowing what they approved and were causing harm to Malaysia. Would Mahathir be prosecuting all those involved in negotiating, signing and approving these projects since they are 'dubious' for crimes against the state?
'Mahathir has made waves pushing back on Chinese investment, warning Beijing against ‘new colonialism.’ Should buyers beware?
Clearly what he meant was any form of neo-colonialism and imperialism will not be tolerated. I think most of us share that view. [The concerns are] tied to some of the cancellations of massive development contracts. This is partly due to the stark realities we have to face. We can’t afford a mammoth, 55 billion Ringgit ($13 billion) project now. And secondly, there were issues raised about these dubious deals made with Chinese companies. I think we have every right to reevaluate and reassess these projects, not only with China, but with all countries.
Below is Anwar Ibrahim's reply to questions on Mahathir's cancellation of Chinese projects while he was in Hong Kong attending a forum. ' Time
What were so dubious about these projects? The projects themselves were dubious, useless? Or were they too costly? How many infrastructure projects are cheap and good and not built with cost recoverable over long term, like the North South Highway or the Crooked Bridge?
Or were the projects dubious because the people approving it were dubious? Or were the money flow dubious? I make a qualification here. The 'dubious' project thing is not from Anwar. He is just parroting it as it is the right thing to do at the moment. He cannot go against whoever started this nonsense.
What is so dubious about these projects that one day they are useless but another day they are useful, one day cancelled and another day ok to build? Or the projects were dubious because dubious people insisted to call them dubious for their personal dubious reasons?
The projects were approved by heads of govt and even the heads of states like the sultans. Are these people dubious? Are these people stupid, traitors to their own country to approve these so called 'dubious' mega projects? By branding these projects as dubious, it is as good as saying all those people that approved these projects are dubious, stupid and traitors to Malaysia, or corrupt leaders with their hands grabbing money from these projects. Is this the case? Is this the accusation?
Najib is in no position to make his case on why he approved all these projects. But there are other leaders and sultans involved. Were they given a chance to state their case or is it a case of power rules and the one in power decides to call anything dubious according to his fancy?
One word, 'dubious' has discredited and tarred the integrity and credibility of many Malaysian leaders, or at least saying that they are all fools, not knowing what they approved and were causing harm to Malaysia. Would Mahathir be prosecuting all those involved in negotiating, signing and approving these projects since they are 'dubious' for crimes against the state?
9/16/2018
Anwar lecturing Singapore
Anwar was invited to give a lecture at the Singapore Summit on 15 Sep. It was reported that the who's who of Singapore were there. The live broadcast showed ex President Tony Tan, ex PM Goh Chok Tong, ex Foreign Minister George Yeo and ex MP Zainul Abidin among the VIPs presence. No serving minister or MP were present, other than MP Goh Chok Tong. I am wondering why like dat. Maybe it is protocol that serving ministers and MPs need not be present to listen to an ex PM of Malaysia who is now not even an MP. Maybe they will all be present when Anwar becomes the PM.
In his response to a touchy question raised by moderator Ho Kwon Ping, Anwar said if and when he becomes the next PM. Everyone is asking about if and when and whether he would be played out by Mahathir a second time. Maybe this is another important point why no serving minister or MP think it is necessary to attend to get to know Anwar better to prepare for his next role as PM.
Here are some of the key points of Anwar's lecture to a Singapore audience. Anwar stressed that the main goals of the new govt is to ensure there is judicial independence and a free media. Under Najib's govt, there was corruption and abuse of power. Too much power rested in the executive and this must be checked. The new govt has given independence to the judiciary and allowing the media to speak the truth. No more fake news or half truths as under the previous regime. Even the anti corruption agency, MACC, is now answerable not to the PM but direct to Parliament To protect judiciary independence, the auditor general will not report to the PM.
What Mahathir's govt has done is to curb the arrogance of power, mismanagement of the country and crimes against the country and people and rooting out corruption. The other points raised was to stop govt intervention and political patronage in the economy. And also the parliament would not become just a rubber stamp for the govt.
Are there any relevance in what Anwar was saying about Malaysia and Singapore?
In his response to a touchy question raised by moderator Ho Kwon Ping, Anwar said if and when he becomes the next PM. Everyone is asking about if and when and whether he would be played out by Mahathir a second time. Maybe this is another important point why no serving minister or MP think it is necessary to attend to get to know Anwar better to prepare for his next role as PM.
Here are some of the key points of Anwar's lecture to a Singapore audience. Anwar stressed that the main goals of the new govt is to ensure there is judicial independence and a free media. Under Najib's govt, there was corruption and abuse of power. Too much power rested in the executive and this must be checked. The new govt has given independence to the judiciary and allowing the media to speak the truth. No more fake news or half truths as under the previous regime. Even the anti corruption agency, MACC, is now answerable not to the PM but direct to Parliament To protect judiciary independence, the auditor general will not report to the PM.
What Mahathir's govt has done is to curb the arrogance of power, mismanagement of the country and crimes against the country and people and rooting out corruption. The other points raised was to stop govt intervention and political patronage in the economy. And also the parliament would not become just a rubber stamp for the govt.
Are there any relevance in what Anwar was saying about Malaysia and Singapore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)